<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: The demise of neoliberalism and the dawn of a new era of ‘neo-statism’	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-demise-of-neoliberalism-and-the-dawn-of-a-new-era-of-neo-statism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-demise-of-neoliberalism-and-the-dawn-of-a-new-era-of-neo-statism/</link>
	<description>ECPR&#039;s Political Science Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2021 13:59:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Camps-Febrer		</title>
		<link>https://theloop.ecpr.eu/the-demise-of-neoliberalism-and-the-dawn-of-a-new-era-of-neo-statism/#comment-4838</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Camps-Febrer]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Oct 2021 13:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://theloop.ecpr.eu/?p=4553#comment-4838</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[This is a very interesting proposal. I find it very useful to think in &#039;ideological eras&#039; and to think of the neoliberal era as a meta-ideology that has conformed the background of at least the last four decades. Studies working on the sociolinguistic dimension show how the neoliberal discourse has indeed impregnated our way of dealing and framing most aspects of our lives (from NGOs to even our mental health).  
Nevertheless, the massive state interventions that we are wintessing lately with the pandemic-related crisis or before that during the 2008-9 financial crisis, do not preclude the end of neoliberal-oriented policies. On the contrary, to my understanding strong state intervention is only inconsistent with neoliberal theory, but not with its actual deployment since the beginning. Polanyi already pointed at this phenomenon with the &#039;double-movement&#039; concept, and more recently, authors researching actual neoliberal moves in the Global South have shown how a strong State is usually needed to implement an agenda that enlarges disposession by privatization but also by the commodification of &#039;new&#039; resources, by strengthening or facilitating oligopolistic practices. It is in fact that the State is needed to repress or soften social consequences and possible resistances (through subsidies or through climate crisis mitigation action, etc...). Others have called this softening of negative consequences the &#039;neoliberalism with a human face&#039; or the &#039;roll-back phase&#039;. This does not show, to my view, any throwback in big corporations&#039; lobbying capacity at global and regional levels, and we haven&#039;t so far seen any real reforms towards ending the impunity of TNCs and their lack of accountability in their global value chains. 
All in all, what I mean to say is that, yes, maybe States are playing a bigger role now than what was intended in neoliberalism&#039;s good old days, but this does not seem to me  indicative enough of the end of an ideological era, nor I see such a strong change in the meta-narrative of politics.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a very interesting proposal. I find it very useful to think in 'ideological eras' and to think of the neoliberal era as a meta-ideology that has conformed the background of at least the last four decades. Studies working on the sociolinguistic dimension show how the neoliberal discourse has indeed impregnated our way of dealing and framing most aspects of our lives (from NGOs to even our mental health).<br />
Nevertheless, the massive state interventions that we are wintessing lately with the pandemic-related crisis or before that during the 2008-9 financial crisis, do not preclude the end of neoliberal-oriented policies. On the contrary, to my understanding strong state intervention is only inconsistent with neoliberal theory, but not with its actual deployment since the beginning. Polanyi already pointed at this phenomenon with the 'double-movement' concept, and more recently, authors researching actual neoliberal moves in the Global South have shown how a strong State is usually needed to implement an agenda that enlarges disposession by privatization but also by the commodification of 'new' resources, by strengthening or facilitating oligopolistic practices. It is in fact that the State is needed to repress or soften social consequences and possible resistances (through subsidies or through climate crisis mitigation action, etc...). Others have called this softening of negative consequences the 'neoliberalism with a human face' or the 'roll-back phase'. This does not show, to my view, any throwback in big corporations' lobbying capacity at global and regional levels, and we haven't so far seen any real reforms towards ending the impunity of TNCs and their lack of accountability in their global value chains.<br />
All in all, what I mean to say is that, yes, maybe States are playing a bigger role now than what was intended in neoliberalism's good old days, but this does not seem to me  indicative enough of the end of an ideological era, nor I see such a strong change in the meta-narrative of politics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
